This is The Lurking Jerk's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following The Lurking Jerk's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
The Lurking Jerk
Recent Activity
They came up with that absurd name because flies found the old name offensive.
This article doesn't seem to provide any insight into whether this new refined system is practical for passenger cars, and it doesn't seem to indicate whether this system is prohibitively expensive or not.
@ electric car insider: Maybe that would be a big plus for a short hop type of aircraft- they will want to use the smaller airports. Electric Aviation will get it's foothold that way, because within the short range of an electric plane, price per passenger can be significantly lower than combustion flight. Electric motors can provide the insane amounts of torque and power to help. It's in the same way that Teslas can summon huge amounts of power as well, and out-accellerate all kinds of ICE powered sports cars.
I find the 30% figure to be extremely suspect. If it were even close to true, it would mean the wheel aerodynamics are the low-hanging fruit. The issue would have been addressed across many models long ago.
cujet: Thanks for your nattering nabobish comment, but electric flight promises to cut the price of a ticket by a factor of 4 or 5. Short hops are already physically possible, so I think it's only a matter of developing planes and commercialising them. Maintenace costs for electric motors is also a fraction that of jet engines. Batteries located in wings get free cooling. Short hops have much less tendency to be affected by headwinds. Don't worry about crossing the pacific at this point. Realize that for NYC to Boston or Philly to DC kind of flights, this is a winner, hands down, no comparison. And it absolutely destroys high speed rail, BTW. Far greener, far cheaper, fact.
Sorry, that's taking the blame too far. You lose your job, go out and get another one. In the meantime, instead of voting for someone who will punish the mean capitalists, vote for someone who will work to stop driving the auto plants offshore.
@SJC: Yes, but Ammonia as an energy carrier just got much easier to make, which I read as 'more affordable'. And thats really the whole thing holding up renewable liquid fuels, affordability. Liquid fuels carry far more energy by volume and weight than any battery, and ammonia really represents an option in the carrying/storing of hydrogen. We're getting there, painfully slowly, but we're getting there.
Pretty impressive achievement, but is anyone looking for that kind of acceleration in this kind of car? I wish they would offer a vehicle with all those extra things not included so I could save the weight, be rid of the complexity, and not have to pay for stuff I never use. After age 40 a car is mostly an appliance that you don't want trouble from. Toyota is doing amazing things with efficiency and reliability..... that's all I want.
@gryf: That's what alcohol is really good at- significantly higher compression ratios than that of gasoline. So the engine can wring more work out of the fuel even though alcohol has less energy per gallon than gasoline.
Many democratic states are fast becoming unlivable because of shortsighted government overreach. Republicans are not 'wiping out' environmental regulations as much as rolling them back to realistic levels. The four bluest states have the highest rates of exodus- and people are moving to republican states where regulations haven't wrecked the economies.
If they could just add a moveable solar panel to cover the windshield, it would put the car over the top for range while keeping the car significantly cooler. I love this effort.... it is amazing.
@Peter I'm hopeful, given this news, but the 'anti diesel' mindset has become firmly entrenched. I predict many will greet this news by continuing to insist that diesel be phased out.
I want to second that question, Mahonj. 43.2% of the material by weight, or 43.2% of the theoretical possible yield, or what??? Can anyone help out?
I searched for this vehicle online and I only find the 38 PHEV range version, which appears to be just released. WTHeck?
I can't get over the fact that 'they' have only tried this now, much like the solid state propulsion for ships that was messed with a decade ago. The advantages of doing so are obvious. For those nattering naybobs who have previously commented, who state that low speed propellers are just as good/better, I can argue otherwise. Solid state propulsion will be still harder to detect, with fewer/no resonances, and how do you make a propeller radar-invisible? Can you? Not easily. A slow-moving propeller is also extremely unwieldy and it wants to hit the ground, the launch apparatus, and nearby obstructions. To mahonj, who asked how VTOL could be quietly accomplished: how about a disposable hydrogen balloon? After being lifted by it, just let go of it. The hydrogen source could also be what powers the fuel cell that powers the array.... ok power density would be an issue. Shut up. To someone who complained of exposed wires at 20,000 volts: that's not unusual. Bug zappers.
@EP, any car uses petroleum or gas resources, and that includes BEVs. The amount of transportation that doesn't do so is infinitesimally small. (Not bragging, but I can do it, as my employer has solar chargers at my job and I drive a Prius Prime)
Take a good look at that car.... I think we have a contender for second ugliest car in human history, behind 1st place 2016 Pruis Prime.
Reading the chart or opening it separately to read: COMPLETE FAIL.
@ SJC: I am surmising (don't know it to be fact) that not enough heat would be made from this new PEM technology and that the actual temp isn't high enough anyway. And, once you extract enough heat from this new fuel cell, you'll drop its operating temperature below the minimum it needs for electricity production. I'm not just a nay-sayer, I'm very much in favor of a simple fuel cell design that can run on other than hydrogen (for example, natural gas.
"Despite representing only 30% of the country’s entire passenger vehicle fleet, diesel vehicles are responsible for 80% of NOx emissions." NO THEY ARE NOT. Diesel passenger cars are responsible for a small fraction of NOx and PM 2.5 emissions. There are many sources of these emissions besides diesel exhaust. What's more, ALL emissions-CO, CO2, volatile organic compounds, NOx, PM 2.5, etc, are all headed downward quite significantly. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport-emissions-of-air-pollutants-8/transport-emissions-of-air-pollutants-4
I think electric cars will really take off- and the rush to mass adopt will take care of the pollution problem just fine. I think they should simply let the existing car fleet run its normal life, and replace city buses and construction equipment with natural gas powerplants. That will work just fine and would be a lot less wasteful.
I thought lean burn engines actually produced hotter temperatures and I also thought hcci was recently revealed to produce excessive PM 2.5 and NOx. Am I wrong?
I wish this article gave some insight into whether this has any hope of becoming practical.
@Lad: Unless you need to travel long distances, like all truckers, or anyone towing a camper, for example. So, no.